Meeting Time: May 02, 2023 at 5:00pm PDT

Agenda Item

1. 23-591 Consideration and Possible Actions on a Proposed 30-Unit Homekey Interim Housing Development on County-Owned Land Located at Lawrence Expressway and Benton Street, Including City Sponsorship and Partial Funding of Project Operations (CEQA: Statutory Exemption under Government Code Section 65913.4, SB 35 Affordable Housing Projects) - Continued from the April 25, 2023 Council Meeting

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
500 of 500 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Neelu Kumawat over 1 year ago

    Could you please create a list of who all will be allowed in this shelter when we permit low barrier entry here?
    Now why do you want to put people from this list in the middle of our neighborhood, close to schools, parks, our homes, our children?

    We are not against helping homeless people, but people with low barrier entry cannot and should NOT be helped by placing them in a neighborhood.

    Please vote responsibly as all the outcomes of this decision will be your responsibility.

  • Default_avatar
    Stephen Yang over 1 year ago

    I strongly oppose the plan. Many people have shared the concerns and red flags of this project. I just want to address the supporters' arguments:
    1. it is unsympathetic to not support the project. -- It is clearly a blackmailing technique to to push things through without considering the rights of the residents.
    2. The county should take the Homekey funding opportunity to get the money to build the projects -- it is clearly putting the political agenda over residents' safety and mental health

  • Default_avatar
    Pilar Furlong over 1 year ago

    Bill Wilson Center supports this interim housing development as a much needed step toward providing shelter for our unhoused neighbors. It is in alignment with the County's Community Plan to End Homelessness, which the City of Santa Clara endorsed. The project also aligns with the findings of the City's Unhoused Task Force that we do not have enough interim housing in Santa Clara. We
    urge Council to take advantage of the Homekey funding opportunity and get the ball rolling on this project.

  • Default_avatar
    Chen Li over 1 year ago

    Strongly oppose this flawed proposal! The location could not be more wrong. This low-barrier shelter project will destroy the local neighborhood and thousands of preschool/elementary school students that come to the 15+ schools in walking distance. These kids already had multiple instances last year to have "dangerous men around" to cause school shutdowns because of sick people hanging around and endanger their school! This zero-transparency project will endanger the local community and kids!

  • Default_avatar
    Jeff Yc over 1 year ago

    I strongly oppose to build the shelter at this location. Building it here would be a shame and a complete negligence of the voice of the residents of Santa Clara city.

  • Default_avatar
    Benny Fong over 1 year ago

    Dear Mayor Gilmore, City Councilmembers:

    We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

    In light of the many issues raised during the public hearing, and the overwhelming opposition from the community, we ask that the City of Santa Clara vote NO on the Proposed Homeless Shelter at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

    Vote NO!

  • Default_avatar
    Daniel Wang over 1 year ago

    strongly oppose, reason listed below
    1) funding plan is not clear! and this will be a huge burden for city of Santa Clara in the next 10 years!
    2) detail design is not missing, we don't know why 337 sqft unit need such high cost for construction. and there is not floor plan, we don't know how people will share the kitchenette.
    3) very close to schools, safety concern remains, as it is still low barrier interim housing.

  • Default_avatar
    Abhishek Gupta over 1 year ago

    Strongly oppose low barrier entry on this location given the number of schools close by.

  • Default_avatar
    Huan Li over 1 year ago

    At every previous community meeting, it was observed that over 80% of attendees were against the proposal. There are a multitude of concerns and issues regarding the location and cost that are unresolvable. Please listen to our voice and don't be against the community!

  • Default_avatar
    Reena Gupta over 1 year ago

    We strongly oppose this homekey project on Lawrence and Benton and extremely concerned about the safety and security of the residential community due to low barrier, no background checks, no liability, no assurance of safety to our kids and elderly. We are empathetic to homeless people, we suggest to take this project away from residential community in other commercial areas to give them jobs and make them responsible citizens of the society. Please listen to the community!

  • Default_avatar
    Susan Hinton over 1 year ago

    In eComments, fear of homeless people is high, reminding me of the 1980s AIDS/HIV hysteria, when people believed they'd catch AIDS by standing next to an LGBTQ person. Also the attachment "Authoritative Research" on home value is silly, because there is no original document reference, just a fake-news style claim. Please produce this document. (Try finding it at www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/research-reports). Lack of hope induces crime. Home is hope, lessening crime. Yes to housing.

  • Default_avatar
    Mahesh Garg over 1 year ago

    I oppose the interim housing proposed at Benton and Lawrence. My reasons are similar to as listed by others - close to schools, neighbors with young kids, and security concerns about residents of proposed housing.

  • Default_avatar
    Ashish Verma over 1 year ago

    1) Funding: Huge burden on Santa Clara
    2) No background checks or ID verification leading to safety and security concerns
    3) County imposing shelters in Santa Clara which already has a high ratio of beds per homeless in all of county while completely not enforcing in affluent cities like Saratoga
    4) Incorrect information used for distance to bus stops and market place
    5) 90 bedrooms that can be converted to house singles/couples
    6) 80-95% of residents oppose with 5k+ wet signatures.
    Need more?

  • Default_avatar
    Jitesh Jain over 1 year ago

    I think it was pretty clear from April 25th meeting that the majority of nearby residents are opposed to this project. Hopefully council members listen to their concerns.

  • Default_avatar
    Ishani Bhatt over 1 year ago

    I strongly oppose low barrier entry homeless shelter at this location. there are many reasons as thousands of people already have explained, it's a huge safety issue for residents of the area and safely issue for families living in the shelter.

  • Default_avatar
    Harini Va over 1 year ago

    Oppose strongly! Close proximity residents who will be directly impacted by the improper planning of this albeit good initiative don’t feel heard at all. After looking at similar initiatives in other closeby cities, not convinced at all that this one will do any better for the true recipients of this initiative and on the way totally convinced it will create safety issues for current residents of the neighborhood.

  • Default_avatar
    Mengqi Ren over 1 year ago

    I strongly oppose Benton project. It's a totally wrong location. A no screening shelter shouldn't be built in residential areas. LifeMoves is playing tricks to use a plan of 30 units for families to fool the community. LifeMoves admitted that they can change the shelter to host non-family clients after 6 months. This proposal is not helping anyone. When the residential area becomes unhealthy, the homeless people won't get any benefits by living here either.

  • Default_avatar
    raymond chang over 1 year ago

    strongly No!!

  • Default_avatar
    vivian zhang over 1 year ago

    We strongly oppose the low-barrier interim housing proposed at Benton Street & Lawrence Expressway.

  • Default_avatar
    Yuan Tian over 1 year ago

    Strongly oppose! The location was not carefully selected. The voice from people living nearby is not considered. False information were given to misleading people. City should vote NO to this proposal.